File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL

Conference Paper: Instruments measuring oral health literacy: an updated systematic review

TitleInstruments measuring oral health literacy: an updated systematic review
Authors
KeywordsInstruments
Oral health literacy
Issue Date2015
PublisherSage Publications, Inc.
Citation
The 2015 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session & Exhibition, Boston, MA., 11-14 March 2015. In Journal of Dental Research Meeting Abstracts, 2015, v. 94 Spec. Iss. A, abstract no. 1816 How to Cite?
AbstractOBJECTIVES: There has been an explosion of interest in Oral Health Literacy (OHL) research and an increasing number of instruments to assess OHL have emerged in recent times. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review on instruments measuring OHL published in the past 18 months (April-2013 to September-2014) and to compare findings with a previous systematic review. METHODS: A comprehensive computerised search was carried out from April 2013-September 2014 using six databases. PRISMA guidelines were followed to identify effective papers which informed the review. The number and type of OHL instruments/questionnaries were reviewed along with assessment of quality of reporting of these instruments. RESULTS: A total of 103 potentially relevant articles were retrieved in the primary search. Nineteen studies that employed six OHL instruments/questionnaries were included in the final analysis. This represents an increase in the number of instruments from 13 to 19. The review identified a move beyond assessment of functional literacy to include the assessment of communicative type literacy (4 new instruments/questionnaries). The quality of reporting varied among studies in terms of STROBE guidelines’ rankings and all included studies were categorised as evidence level '2c'. Aspects of instruments’ validity and reliability were determined. CONCLUSIONS: The interest in measuring OHL continues with an increasing number of literacy instruments in recent times. There has been a shift in OHL research from functional literacy to assessing communicative literacy.
DescriptionePoster: abstract no. 1816
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/212163
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 4.602
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.714

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorParthasarathy Srinivasan, D-
dc.contributor.authorMcGrath, C-
dc.contributor.authorBridges, S-
dc.contributor.authorWong, HM-
dc.contributor.authorYiu, C-
dc.contributor.authorAu, T-
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-21T02:25:32Z-
dc.date.available2015-07-21T02:25:32Z-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationThe 2015 IADR/AADR/CADR General Session & Exhibition, Boston, MA., 11-14 March 2015. In Journal of Dental Research Meeting Abstracts, 2015, v. 94 Spec. Iss. A, abstract no. 1816-
dc.identifier.issn0022-0345-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/212163-
dc.descriptionePoster: abstract no. 1816-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: There has been an explosion of interest in Oral Health Literacy (OHL) research and an increasing number of instruments to assess OHL have emerged in recent times. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review on instruments measuring OHL published in the past 18 months (April-2013 to September-2014) and to compare findings with a previous systematic review. METHODS: A comprehensive computerised search was carried out from April 2013-September 2014 using six databases. PRISMA guidelines were followed to identify effective papers which informed the review. The number and type of OHL instruments/questionnaries were reviewed along with assessment of quality of reporting of these instruments. RESULTS: A total of 103 potentially relevant articles were retrieved in the primary search. Nineteen studies that employed six OHL instruments/questionnaries were included in the final analysis. This represents an increase in the number of instruments from 13 to 19. The review identified a move beyond assessment of functional literacy to include the assessment of communicative type literacy (4 new instruments/questionnaries). The quality of reporting varied among studies in terms of STROBE guidelines’ rankings and all included studies were categorised as evidence level '2c'. Aspects of instruments’ validity and reliability were determined. CONCLUSIONS: The interest in measuring OHL continues with an increasing number of literacy instruments in recent times. There has been a shift in OHL research from functional literacy to assessing communicative literacy.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSage Publications, Inc.-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Dental Research Meeting Abstracts-
dc.rightsJournal of Dental Research Meeting Abstracts. Copyright © Sage Publications, Inc.-
dc.subjectInstruments-
dc.subjectOral health literacy-
dc.titleInstruments measuring oral health literacy: an updated systematic review-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailMcGrath, C: mcgrathc@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailBridges, S: sbridges@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailWong, HM: wonghmg@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailYiu, C: ckyyiu@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityMcGrath, C=rp00037-
dc.identifier.authorityBridges, S=rp00048-
dc.identifier.authorityWong, HM=rp00042-
dc.identifier.authorityYiu, C=rp00018-
dc.identifier.hkuros245684-
dc.identifier.volume94-
dc.identifier.issueSpec. Iss. A-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats